Investigating the Relationship Between Iranian EFL Learners’ Use of Strategies in Collocating Words and Their Proficiency Level 1 Nasser Rashidi 2 & Seyyed Ali Mirsalari 3 Received: 20/05/2016 Accepted: 15/09/2016 Abstract This study investigated the relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ use of strategies in producing English collocations and their proficiency level. Participants were 115 undergraduate university students at 3 proficiency levels, that is, low, intermediate, and high, majoring in English language at the Faculty of Letters and Humanties at Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran. Their selection was based on their scores on a proficiency test (Oxford Quick Placement Test, OQPT). Participants’ knowledge of collocations and the strategies used were examined through a fill-in-the-blank and a translation test, both of which were accompanied by a self-report questionnaire. Findings showed that all the strategies in the self-report questionnaire were employed by the participants. However, retrieval, literal translation, and L2 common and delexicalized words were the most commonly employed strategies. Quantitative analysis of the data also revealed that the participants’ overall use of strategies in producing correct collocations was lower than their use of strategies in producing incorrect collocations. Results also showed that the participants in the 3 proficiency groups appeared to have adopted the same strategies and did not differ much in their total use of strategies. Nevertheless, there were differences among the 3 groups in producing correct collocations. These findings have immediate implications for EFL learners, teachers, and materials designers. Keywords: English Collocations; Strategies; EFL Learners; Iranian English Learners 1 Please cite this paper as follows: Rashidi, N., & Mirsalari, S. A. (2017). Investigating the relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ use of strategies in collocating words and their proficiency level. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 93-118. 2 Corresponding author, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran; [email protected]3 Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran; [email protected]
26
Embed
Investigating the Relationship Between Iranian EFL ...rals.scu.ac.ir/article_13093_3a56d699445d361966e9f61c98245a00.pdf · Investigating the Relationship Between Iranian EFL Learners’
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Investigating the Relationship Between Iranian EFL
Learners’ Use of Strategies in Collocating Words and
Their Proficiency Level1
Nasser Rashidi2 & Seyyed Ali Mirsalari3
Received: 20/05/2016 Accepted: 15/09/2016
Abstract
This study investigated the relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ use of
strategies in producing English collocations and their proficiency level. Participants
were 115 undergraduate university students at 3 proficiency levels, that is, low,
intermediate, and high, majoring in English language at the Faculty of Letters and
Humanties at Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran. Their selection was based
on their scores on a proficiency test (Oxford Quick Placement Test, OQPT).
Participants’ knowledge of collocations and the strategies used were examined
through a fill-in-the-blank and a translation test, both of which were accompanied by
a self-report questionnaire. Findings showed that all the strategies in the self-report
questionnaire were employed by the participants. However, retrieval, literal
translation, and L2 common and delexicalized words were the most commonly
employed strategies. Quantitative analysis of the data also revealed that the
participants’ overall use of strategies in producing correct collocations was lower
than their use of strategies in producing incorrect collocations. Results also showed
that the participants in the 3 proficiency groups appeared to have adopted the same
strategies and did not differ much in their total use of strategies. Nevertheless, there
were differences among the 3 groups in producing correct collocations. These
findings have immediate implications for EFL learners, teachers, and materials
designers.
Keywords: English Collocations; Strategies; EFL Learners; Iranian English Learners
1Please cite this paper as follows:
Rashidi, N., & Mirsalari, S. A. (2017). Investigating the relationship between
Iranian EFL learners’ use of strategies in collocating words and their proficiency
level. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 93-118.
4.5 Frequency of Strategies Used by High-Proficiency Group in Producing
Collocations
As shown in Table 8, the high-proficiency group employed all the
strategies in the inventory in order to produce collocations. In producing correct
collocations, retrieval with 556 times (22.36%) of occurrence ranked first, followed
by literal translation, with 229 occurrences (9.21%). This suggests that retrieval was
the most widely used strategy by the high-proficiency group in the production of
correct collocations. Guessing with 12 (0.48%) occurrences and circumlocution and
paraphrase with 22 (0.88%) times of occurrence were the least used strategies by the
high-proficiency group in the production of correct collocations.
4.6 Frequency of Strategies Used by Intermediate-Proficiency Group in Producing
Collocations
With respect to use of strategies to produce correct collocations, the
performances of the intermediate-proficiency group did differ greatly from that of
the high-proficiency group. A closer look at Table 8 demonstrates that nine
strategies were employed by the intermediate-proficiency group in the production of
correct collocations. Of these strategies, retrieval with 502 times of occurrence
(14.09%) and L2 common and delexicalized words with 331 occurrences (9.33%)
had the highest frequencies, whereas guessing with 17 occurrences (0.48%) and use
of descriptions and definitions with 65 (1.82%) occurrences had the least
frequencies.
4.7 Frequency of Strategies Used by Low-Proficiency Group in Producing
Collocations
As with the use of strategies in the production of collocations, out of a total
of 7,546 occurrences of strategies 1,499 occurrences belonged to the low-
proficiency group, of which 415 uses led to the production of correct collocations
and 1,084 resulted into the production of incorrect collocations. In the production of
correct collocations, the most widely used strategy was retrieval with 174
occurrences (11.6%) followed by literal translation with 74 times (4.94%) of
occurrence. Other strategies were used with low frequencies.
With regard to the total number of strategies employed by the low,
intermediate, and high groups in the production of correct collocations, as Table 8
indicates, the three groups differed in their effective uses of strategies. The results
show that the high-proficiency group with 1201 effective uses of strategies (48.31%)
were relatively more successful in the use of strategies for productions of correct
collocations compared to the intermediate- and low-proficiency groups who
employed them 1,523 times (42.77%) and 415 times (27.69%), respectively.
Investigation the Relationship Between Iranian . . . | 107
A closer look at the data also reveals that the most successful strategy in the
production of correct collocations was retrieval which the high-proficiency group
used 556 times (22.36%), the intermediate-proficiency group 502 times (14.09%),
and the low-proficiency group 174 times (11.6%), suggesting its common use
among the three groups. This also suggests that the low-proficiency group with
seemingly a smaller repertoire of L2 vocabulary and consequently not being
consciously aware of collocations, failed to find them in their mental lexicon and
thus employed retrieval with a low frequency in comparison to the intermediate- and
high-proficiency groups who possibly have a larger size of L2 vocabulary. In this
regard, Taylor (2002) argued that chances that EFL learners cannot combine words
correctly without having previously read and stored them are very high. For this
reason, he proposed that, in order to have a good command of English collocations,
L2 learners should do a lot of reading of English newspapers, extensive reading of
numerous literatures written in English, and modern novels on their own.
Literal translation was the second strategy participants employed when
deciding to produce collocations by using their intuition instead of the retrieval
strategy. Some participants employed literal translation which proved to be helpful
when there was congruency between the two languages. But in cases where the
participants generalized the literal translation on noncongruent collocations, L1
interference occurred and resulted in ill-formed collocations. In this respect,
Nowruzi Khiabani (2000) pointed out that, in cases where there is a one-to-one
correspondence between L1 and L2, L2 learners’ reliance on their L1 not only does
not cause any problem for them but does also facilitate their performance in the L2.
The use of L2 common and delexicalized words was the third type of
strategy used. One possible reason why some collocations containing delexicalized
words were unchallenging whereas others difficult and challenging is that in some
collocations of this type the delexicalized component gave its primary sense,
whereas in others they gave a meaning which was distanced from its primary sense.
For example, in collocations such as do housework, take control of, and keep a
secret, the delexicalized components do, take, and keep were used in their primary
senses, that is, to do sth, to seize sth, and to hold sth, respectively. In contrast, as
expected, in cases where the delexicalized components lost their primary senses and
their combinations with the other partners conveyed farfetched meaning, the
participants encountered serious problems. For example, in collocations such as
make a pact, do vocabulary test, and have a dream, the delexicalized components of
collocation, that is, make, do, and have were used in their nonprimary senses.
The fourth type of strategy conducive to the production of collocations was
assumed synonymity. Although the analysis of the data showed that the participants
employed this strategy with relatively high frequency and their choices occasionally
108 | RALs, 8(2), Fall 2017
led to the production of correct collocations, it should not be ignored that a very
limited number of synonyms in English can occur in the same collocation pattern
(Nation, 2001). For instance, whereas application of synonym was effective in
producing collocations such as deadly weapon, give advice, hold hostage, provide
accommodation, gain experience, take control, and keep a secret, it was proved to
be ineffective in other cases. For instance, incorrect collocations such as *get cold, *do measure, *empty tape, *good sleep, *quick lane, *decayed egg, and *get a revenge
on were produced because the participants, unaware of selectional restrictions,
replaced catch with get, take with do, blank with empty, sound with good, fast with
quick, rotten with decayed, and take with get.
The fifth type of strategy adopted to a certain extent by the participants in
the production of collocations was use of contextual information. Nation (2004)
argued that it is the local context and sometimes the context beyond it, that is,
sentential context which helps determine the collocates of a certain lexical item.
Circumlocution or paraphrase was the sixth type of strategy used by
participants in translating collocations. It seems that when the learners failed to
translate certain Persian collocations into English, they resorted to circumlocution
and paraphrase to convey the intended meaning and produce the target collocation.
Use of descriptions and definitions provided below each item was the
seventh type of strategy which the participants relied on in their attempts to provide
answer for certain items in the fill-in-the-blank test. It seems that when the
participants were unable to find the right collocation to use, they relied on the
descriptions and definitions as an appeal to the authority strategy.
Guessing strategy was the eighth type of strategy which the participants
employed in their attempt to produce English collocations. It seems that the
participants who did not know the most appropriate lexical items to produce correct
collocations, tried to rely on Guessing strategy. According to Oxford (1990),
guessing strategies can be made based on a wide range of clues; namely, linguistic
and nonlinguistic clues. In a similar vein, Nagy (2009) argued that the effects of
guessing are determined by L2 learners’ knowledge of linguistics, strategies, and the
world.
The findings showed that all the three groups relied more or less on
approximately similar strategies in the process of producing correct or incorrect
collocations; however, they differed with regard to the frequency of uses of most of
the strategies employed especially in the production of correct collocations. The data
also showed that as the learners’ proficiency in English enhanced, their effective
uses of strategies improved.
Investigation the Relationship Between Iranian . . . | 109
These results are consistent with the findings of a recent research which
showed that as the learners’ proficiency level increased, their uses of strategies
enhanced (Lia, 2010). This conclusion is also in line with that of Ahmed (1999),
who notes, “good learners not only use more strategies, but they are more successful
in their uses of strategies than the poor learners use” (p. 9). These findings also
corroborate that of Oxford (1990) who reported that use of strategies is more
strongly related to proficiency level. It is, however, not in accord with Kaivanpanah,
Yamouty, and Karami (2012) who found no relationship between the use of
strategies and language proficiency level.
5. Conclusion
The purpose of the current study was to identify strategies which the EFL
learners claimed they used during the production of English collocations. The
findings showed that almost all the strategies in the self-report questionnaire were
employed by the participants in the three proficiency groups. However, retrieval,
literal translation, and L2 common and delexicalized words were the most
commonly employed strategies. Even though several scholars have attributed most
of the learners’ errors in the process of producing English collocations to negative
transfer from native language which is the only source from which L2 learners can
gain support (Bahns & Eldow, 1993; Farghal & Obiedat, 1995; Nesselhauf, 2003;
Zughoul & Abdul-Fattah, 2001), the results of the current study showed that
intralingual factors were also responsible for some collocational errors. This was
shown in the participants’ use of L2 common and delexicalized words,
overextension of L2 lexical, and assumed synonymity. The findings are consistent
with the findings reached by Wang and Shaw (2008) who proposed that, in addition
to L1 transfer, other factors were responsible of the learners’ collocational problems.
The most important goal to use collocational strategies is to compensate for
deficiencies resulting from an inadequate L2 linguistic system to foster
communication in L2. Therefore, scholars studying learners’ language production
recommended teaching collocations in order to help learners communicate
effectively in L2. The findings also showed that all the three groups relied more or
less on approximately similar strategies in the process of producing correct or
incorrect collocations. This indicates that learners with different proficiency levels
have certain ability in common that is referred to as strategic competence. Even
though all the three groups did not differ significantly from each other on their
overall selections of strategies, they differed with respect to the frequencies of
occurrences of most of the strategies employed, especially in the production of
correct collocations.
110 | RALs, 8(2), Fall 2017
6. Pedagogical Implications and Recommendations
Collocational strategies adopted by the participants in answering questions
were investigated with the hope to provide teachers with a useful tool to understand
their learners’ performance when attempting to produce English collocations. In
particular, we hope the findings here shed light on areas of strength and facilitate
identifying the functional strategies for promoting learners’ performance in
language. The findings may also help teachers to identify those productive strategies
that result in the production of correct collocations. Knowing which strategies are
employed during the process of producing L2 collocations brings about illuminating
insights for both teachers and learners. It enables teachers to improve their learners’
success in collocating words by fostering the use of those helpful strategies which
are overlooked by learners. Learners may also benefit greatly by becoming more
aware of the types and frequency of strategies they employ in the production of
collocations. As a result of this awareness, L2 learners may have a better
understanding of their strengths and weaknesses in strategy use and would then be
able to improve their collocational knowledge.
Because retrieval appeared to be helpful in the production of correct
collocations, it is recommended that other ways be discovered to improve learners’
ability to retrieve correct English collocations. For this purpose, early exposure to
collocations is suggested from the initial stages of L2 learning (Hill, 2000; Lewis,
2000). Collocations should be presented through listening programs and intensive
reading at the initial stages of EFL learning to supply an L2 collocational input,
which can later result into an output on the part of learners. In this regard, Hill
(2000) pointed out that, “what the language learners are exposed to from the initial
stages is crucial. Good quality input should lead to good quality retrieval” (p. 54).
Consequently, when an L2 vocabulary item is first presented to learners, it should be
introduced with its frequent partners in its L2 usual use. Such partnership between
lexical units should be emphasized as early as possible. In this way, learners would
confidently identify such partnerships whenever they face them; hence, they may
learn and later retrieve them as whole chunks.
The findings also showed that in producing both correct and incorrect
collocations, the participants overused a particular strategy such as L2 common and
delexicalized words with high frequency in comparison to other strategies.
According to Hill’s (2000) and Lewis’s (2000) observations, if teachers wish to
extend the collocational competence of language learners, they should use the
language that learners already have. To this end, they propose that learners are
provided with already known common adjectives and verbs together with their
frequent noun collocates (Lewis, 2000). For instance, it is recommended to present
delexicalized verbs such as do, make, take, get, have, put, and give, or common
Investigation the Relationship Between Iranian . . . | 111
adjectives such as good, big, full, complete, great, little, quick, large, strong, and
bad with a wide range of their noun collocates. Therefore, learners will be persuaded
to look for the collocational ranges of such common adjectives or verbs and
subsequently practice them in their usual use. Furthermore, based on Woolard’s
(2000l) view, learners’ attention should be drawn to the fact that learning more
vocabulary is not just learning new words; it is often learning familiar words in new
combinations.
Moreover, the findings showed that, in the process of producing both
correct and incorrect collocations, the participants relied heavily on their L1 to
provide answers to the given tasks. Use of literal translation of a single lexical item
was a prevailing strategy that resulted into the production of correct collocations and
incorrect collocations. Surprisingly enough, the use of literal translation of a single
lexical item also led to the production of incorrect collocations. This indicates that
L1 transfer of single lexical items does not always result into the production of
correct collocations. A possible justification for this fact is that participants, most
likely being unaware of collocational restrictions, used to transfer word for word to
produce such combinations. Therefore, it is recommended, as Lewis (2000)
proposed, that learners should aim at transferring chunk-for-chunk rather than word-
for-word.
References
Ahmed, M. (1999). Vocabulary learning strategies. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching
collocation: Further development in the lexical approach (pp. 3-14). London:
Language Teaching Publication.
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bahns, J., & Eldaw, M. (1993). Should we teach EFL students collocations? System,
21(1), 101-114.
Biskup, D. (1992). L1 influence on learners’ renderings of English collocations. A
Polish/German empirical study. In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Béjoint (Eds.),
Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 85-93). London: Macmillan.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices.
London: Longman.
Chen, M. H. (2008). A study of English collocation competence of college students
in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Applied Foreign
Languages, National University of Taiwan, Taipei, Taiwan.
for students of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
112 | RALs, 8(2), Fall 2017
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction,
administration, and processing. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language
Learning, 54(3), 227-275.
Farghal, M., & Obiedat, H. (1995). Collocations: A neglected variable in EFL.
IRAL, 33(4), 315-331.
Firth, J. R. (1957). Modes of meaning. In J. R. Firth (Ed.), Papers in linguistics (pp.
190-215). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in
education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Geranpayeh, A. (2006). A quick review of the English quick placement test.
Retrieved from University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations:
http://www.uniss.it/documenti/lingue
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: collocations
and formulae. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and
applications (pp. 145-160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hawraz, H. (2010). Major sources of collocational errors made by EFL learners at
Koya University. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara,
Turkey.
Hill, J., & Lewis, M. (1997). Dictionary of selected collocations. Hove: Language
Teaching Publications.
Hill, J. (2000). Revising priorities: From grammatical failure to collocational
success. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the
lexical approach, (pp. 47-69). Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied
Linguistics, 19(1), 24-44.
Jabbari. A. A. (2014). Collocational differences in Persian and English and their
effect on learners’ production. International Journal of Educational
Investigations, 1, 172-190.
Kaivanpanah, S., Yamouty, P., & Karami, H. (2012). Examining the effects of
proficiency, gender, and task type on the use of communication strategies.
Potra Linguarum, 17, 79-93.
Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation: Further development in the lexical
approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Investigation the Relationship Between Iranian . . . | 113
Lia, H. (2010). Gender effect on the use of CSs. English Language Teaching, 3(4),
28-32.
Liu, C. P. (2013). A study of strategy use in producing lexical collocations. In
Selected papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English teaching
(pp. 481-492). Taipei: Crane.
Mahmoud, A. (2005). Collocation errors made by Arab learners of English. Journal
of King Saud University—Languages and Translation, 25(1), 35-43.
Nagy, W. (2009). On the role of context in first and second language vocabulary
learning. US-China Foreign Language, 6(9), 57-61.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and
some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223-242.
Newman, A. (1988). The contrastive analysis of Hebrew and English dress and
cooking collocations: Some linguistic and pedagogic parameters. Applied
Linguistics, 9(3), 293-305.
Nowruzi Khiabani, M. (2000). Sources of collocational clashes. Zaban & Adab, 8,
1-11.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Phoocharoensil, S. (2011). Collocational errors in EFL learners’ interlanguage.
Journal of Education and Practice, 2(3), 103-120.
Radmanesh, E. (2000). Common idioms and collocations in English and Persian.
Tehran: Zaban Sara Publication Company.
Rebarber, T., Rybinski, P., Hauck, M., Scarcella, R., Buteux, A., & Wang, J.
(2007). Designing the comprehensive English language learner assessment
(CELLA) for the benefit of users. In J. Abedi (Ed.), English language
proficiency assessment in the nation: Current status and future practice (pp.
63-79). Davis: University of California.
Sadeghi, K. (2009). Collocational differences between L1 and L2: Implications for
EFL learners and teachers. TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), 100-124.
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy
(Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
114 | RALs, 8(2), Fall 2017
Tahriri, A., & Yamini, M. (2010). On teaching to diversity: Investigating the
effectiveness of MI-inspired instruction in an EFL context. Journal of
Teaching Language Skills of Shiraz University, 2(1), 166-183.
Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion on of communication strategy.
TESOL Quarterly 15, 285-295.
Taylor, L. (2002). Learning second language vocabulary (2nd ed.). Hamel
Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Woolard, G. (2000). Collocation-encouraging learner independence. In M. Lewis
(Ed.), Teaching collocation: Further development in the lexical approach (pp.
28-46). London: Language Teaching Publication.
Zarei, A. (2002). What is wrong with collocations? An investigation of the Iranian
advanced learners’ problems with English collocations? Journal of Humanities
of University Sistan and Balouchestan, 7(2), 240-280.
Zarei, A., & Koosha, M. (2003). Patterns of Iranian advanced learners’ problems
with English collocations: A focus on lexical collocations. Iranian Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 137-169.
Ziahosseini, M., & Salehi, M. (2007). An investigation of the relationship between
motivation and language learning strategies. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji,
41, 85-107.
Zughoul, M., & Abdel Fattah, H. (2001). Collocational competence of Arabic
speaking learners of English: A study in lexical semantics. Journal of the
College of Arts, 1(1), 1-19.
Investigation the Relationship Between Iranian . . . | 115
Appendix A
Sample Items
Directions: Complete each blank with an adjective or a verb which makes acceptable
collocation with bold noun so that they express the meaning provided in the brackets below
each item. Don’t use the adjectives or verbs from the parentheses. If you think more than one
answer is possible, give all alternatives.
1. She was a(n) ……………. acquaintance of my family in Vienna.
(= happening by chance without being planned)
2. Their new house is located in a(n) ……………. alley called Lisary.
(= a small narrow street with no way out at one end)
3. In addition to fashion, Bond Street is also renowned for its auction houses and for its
……………. art galleries.
(= forms of art, especially paintings or sculpture, that are produced and admired for their
beauty and high quality)
4. Cigarette smoking can double our risk of dying from a heart attack and …………….
smokers are even more likely to die young.
(= someone who smokes a lot.)
5. We were stuck in ……………. traffic for more than an hour.
(= a large amount of traffic)
6. The cheese is firm in texture and has a(n) ……………. flavor.
(= a resentful taste of a food or drink)
7. I’ll give you one ……………. chance and if you don’t bring it on Monday, you’ll be in trouble.
(= a final time or situation which you can use to do something that you want to do)
8. The ……………. administration of company created many serious problems.
(= not as good as it could be or should be)
9. I have had a(n) ……………. headache, and have not been able go to work for a month.
(= a regular pain in your head)
10. The mother’s behavior has a(n) ……………. impact on the developing child.
(= having a strong influence or effect)
11. I spent all morning …………. housework.
(= to perform an action or activity such as washing dishes or cleaning a house, etc.)
12. He …………. an oath of allegiance to his adopted country.
(= make this promise or swear)
13. Will you please …………. your eye on my house while I’m on vacation?
(= to look after someone or something and make sure that they are safe)
14. People with gray hair often ………………… it black.
(= to give something like hair a different color using a dye)
15. I have found the best way to ……………advice to your children is to find out what they
want and then advise them to do it.
(= to tell someone what they should do)
16. Statistics indicate that men are more likely to ………… crime than women.
(= to do something wrong or illegal)
17. Would you please ………. me a favor and take this letter to the post office?
(= something that you do for someone in order to help them or be kind to them)
18. I ……………a very disturbing dreams last night.
(= a series of thoughts, images, and feelings that you experience when you are asleep)
19. He …………. revenge on his employers by setting fire to the factory.
(= something you do in order to punish someone who has harmed or offended you)
20. We’ll …………………whatever action is necessary.
(= the process of doing something, especially in order to achieve a particular thing)
116 | RALs, 8(2), Fall 2017
Appendix B
Sample Items
Directions: Complete each blank with an acceptable adjective + noun or verb + noun
collocation considering the Persian equivalents provided. If you think more than one answer
is possible, give all alternatives.
1. I think he comes from Germany because he a ………. German ………....
لهجه ی غلیظ2. Everyone knows that a little …………... is sometimes necessary in a time of crisis.
دروغ مصلحتی1. I was frequently sick through being forced to drink …………... that had been left
standing out of refrigerator for hours. کره ی فاسد2. His lips were intensely smiling and his …………... shone. دندان مصنوعی5. There was a disgusting smell in the house - a bit like ……….......
دهتخم مرغ گندی 6. There was a …………... in the output of journals and books and in the range of and
demand for newspapers.
افزایش سریع7. The two women were …………... of the women’s union.
چهره ی یرجسته8. You had better have your …………... extracted.
دندان خراب و فاسد
9. There was nothing else for breakfast, so I had to put up with a …………....
تخم مرغ آب پز10. This cream is good for dry skin-that one would be better for ………….... پوست چرب11. After a short …………..., the inspector agreed to pay the costs in cash from his local
station funds. بحث داغ12. This debate is deep and serious, for it reflects …………... about the very nature of society
and politics. مخالفت اساسی13. You need to wash …………... more often than you need to wash dry hair.
موی چرب14. I don’t like to drive in the …………... on the motorway.
خط سبقت
15. Go home and think about whether you really want to have the operation -- I don’t want
you to make any ………….... تصمیم عجوالنه16. Universities have to …………... student …………... for first-year students.
امکانات فراهم آوردن17. She would have to …………... in order to improve their relationship.
ابتکار به خرج دادن
Investigation the Relationship Between Iranian . . . | 117
18. She …………... to a baby on Thursday.
به دنیا آوردن19. Have you been …………... your …………...?
دارو مصرف کردن20. These chemicals have been found to …………... serious environmental ………….... .
اسیب رساندن21. The property company …………... a huge …………... on the deal.
سود کردن22. We all …………... to protect the environment.
مسولیت داشتن23. I hate …………... at weekends.
خرید کردن24. He …………... and fell.
گام برداشتن25. The problem was how to say ‘no’ to her without …………....
رنجانیدن26. I’m going to …………. and ask her if she wants to go out somewhere.
فرصت را غنیمت شمردن27. She …………... them a little …………....
لبخند زدن به28. No final …………... has been …………..., but it seems likely that the two companies
could merge in the near future.
تصمیم گرفتن29. It’ll …………... your father’s …………... if you tell him you’re giving up college.
قلب کسی را شکستن30. The couple………….... not to talk about each other.
عهد بستن
Appendix C
Self-Checklist Questionnaire
Directions: This self-check list questionnaire is a list of several strategies of language use
and specifically communication strategies which are supposed to be employed by language
users when dealing with vocabulary in general and collocations in particular. In table below
you are provided with a list of strategies. Please look at the table and specify the strategy you
think you have relied on in producing each collocation item. The strategy type or its number
should be written in the Answer Sheets attached. If you think more than one strategy is
applicable, please write it down.
For example, in answering the following item: ‘Even though, I had little grammatical
knowledge, I could use my instinct to choose the right answer’, I used assumed synonymity
which is the strategy number 2.
118 | RALs, 8(2), Fall 2017
Strategies Definition
1. Circumlocution and
paraphrase
describing or exemplifying the target object or action
2. Assumed synonymity is a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the
same as another word or phrase in the same language
3. Guessing to assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient
information.
4. Literal translation translating literally a lexical item, an idiom, a compound
word or structure from L1 to L2
5. L2 common and delexicalized
words
are words such as have in have a look or make in make a
promise whose original meaning disappears when they
combine with certain nouns.
6. Overextension of L2 lexical
items
the process of extending the application of a rule to
items that are excluded from it in the language norm
7. Retrieval the act or process of recovering specific information
from stored data
8. Use of contextual information the information based on the context, or surrounding
words, phrases, and paragraphs, of the writing.
9. Description and definition terms provided as clue to express the meaning of the